Obama's $36 Billion Nuke-Powered Giveaway

[Donnachaidh]

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/harvey-wasserman/34370/obamas-36-billion-nuke-powered-giveaway

Barack Obama's 2012 budget marks a major escalation in the nuclear war against a green-powered future, whose advocates are already fighting back.

Amidst massive budget cuts for social and environmental programs, Obama wants $36 billion in loan guarantees for a reactor industry that cannot secure sufficient private "marketplace" financing for new construction.

In the past decade the reactor industry has spent at least $640 million lobbying for these massive advance bailouts. But since 2007, safe energy advocates have succeeded in keeping them out of the federal budget.

The $36 billion Obama wants to underwrite new reactor construction would be added to $18.5 billion set aside under George W. Bush. In 2010 Obama allocated $8.33 billion of that for two reactors under construction in Georgia. The Continuing Resolution for funding the government until the end of the 2011 fiscal year slashes all loan guarantees for energy except those for nuclear reactors and uranium enrichment.

More at the link --

[MadHound]

1. It staggers me that we're pursuing nuclear power,

It costs more than green renewables, it is a faulty, dangerous form of power generation, and it does nothing to promote energy independence.

[Statistical]

2. I am glad we are pursing nuclear power.

It is a proven, reliable, safe, and clean producer of baseload power.

It does a lot to promote energy independence.

with breeder reactors nuclear power can be infinitely renewable.

Of course I also support solar, wind, and other renewable forms of energy.

[Avant Guardian]

5. Just let those future people deal with the toxic wasteland we leave

Out of sight, out of mind!!

[Statistical]

7. Toxic wasteland? Your lifetime total power consumption (not just electricity but all energy)

if produced by nuclear power would produce so little waste it wouldn't even fill a soda can. 90% of the radioactivity is gone within the first decade, 99% by the first century. I will take a soda can that is 99% inert after a century over our current system anyday.

Given you currently personally produce far more that that in harmful waste nuclear power could only be better.

[Tikki]

8. And yet the Community where the Mr. and I grew up is swimming in NUKE Waste and...

still doesn't know what to do with the NUKE waste!!!! ...
They've been working on the waste PROBLEM for over 40 years now...

Clean Up..ah ha ha..

The Tikkis

[Statistical]

9. Nuclear weapons or nuclear power? Of course there is a distinction.

Getting weapons grade material requires significant post-processing and produces waste in a variety of forms much of it corrosive radioactive liquid.

Spent nuclear fuel is just that spent fuel rods. They sit there for decades slowing becoming inert.

[Tikki]

15. NUKE power only!!!...then why do we care that 'some' Countries are...

building up their NUKE capabilities!!!??...


Tikki

[Wilms]

11. Can you back those decay #'s? This graph seems at odds with your post.

[Statistical]

12. Actuallly that chart pefectly backs me up. The chart is logarithmic.

The drop from 10^18 to 10^17 is a 90% reduction. The drop from 10^18 to 10^16 is a 99% reduction.

Here is another easier to read chart. It is the total radioactivity of 1 ton of spent fuel. When fuel leaves the reactor it is very "hot" about 10^5 TBq (10^18 Bq) but the vast majority of that decays off in minutes thats right minutes. Many isotopes decay to stable elements in minutes and hours, even more in days and weeks. After a year in the cooling pond short lived radioactives have burned off dropping total activity in the 10^4 TBq magnitude range. After a decade 90% has burned off, after a century 99% has burned off. By about 500 years the spent waste is less radioactive that the raw nuclear ore (remember uranium is NATURALLY radioactive).



This is why the people in the photo can stand next to the casks without getting more than a negligible dose. The fuel rods as the second they came out of the reactor had an activity output millions of times higher and would have killed them instantly if they tried. Fuel rods spend 2-3 decades in a cooling pond (water is an excellent radiation shield). By the time they have gotten to dry cask stage the overwleming majority of the radioactive material has "burned off" (decayed to stable non-radioactive elements) and 99.9999% of the short lived (high gamma producers) are gone.



Here is another chart of total lifecycle activity from http://www.wise-uranium.org/nfca.html

[Wilms]

16. How long before you can sit next to a spent fuel rod? n/t

[Statistical]

19. How long before you can sit next to raw uranium or radon gas? n/t

[Wilms]

22. Well gee, now that you mention...

I was asking about spent fuel rods. But There are risks involved with this stuff before it's put into use. Right?

[Statistical]

36. Sure. There are risks to a lot of things.

The point is the risks can be managed. Nuclear fuel decays rapidly. Because of half life it remains radioactive for a very long time but then again so does natural uranium. The earth isn't producing any new U-238. The uranium is the fraction that is left over from the creation of the universe. In 700 million years the amount of uranium U-238 in the earth will be roughly half, 700 million years ago the amount of U-238 in the earth was roughly double.

So the belief that it will take millions of years before it is "gone" is of dubious value. The activity (level of radiation) decays very rapidly. 90%+ over first year, 99% over the first century.

[Wilms]

46. At what point need you not worry about it?

Could I sit next to it in a hundred years? Not care when it leeches into the water table?

[bananas]

52. The National Academy of Sciences and the EPA says it has to be contained for a million years

The Bush EPA only wanted to require 10,000 years,
a federal judge ordered the EPA to follow the science and require 1 million years:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=201750&mesg_id=201990

[apocalypsehow]

17. Excellent reply, explained so even a layman like me can understand it. Thanks for the post.

:thumbsup:

[MadHound]

31. Don't be fooled by the flashy graphics.

Instead check my links out from actual academic and DOE sources and educate yourself.

[bananas]

56. Except the National Academy of Sciences and the EPA say it has to be contained for a million years

His chart doesn't tell the whole story and only serves to mislead the uninformed.

[apocalypsehow]

59. The chart is factually straight-forward: it stands un-refuted. Period. n/t.

[MadHound]

60. Here, let me refute it for you,

<http://gnews.wustl.edu/elements/e2_6/e2_6_art_bruno.pdf>

"After a typical burn-up, the radioactivity of the spent fuel has increased by a factor of a million (1017becquerel/metric tonne of fuel). One year after discharge from a reactor, the dose rate measured one meter from the fuel assembly is one million millisieverts per hour (for comparison, the natural
background dose is on the order of three millisieverts per year). A person exposed to this level of radioactivity at a distance of one meter would receive a lethal dose in less than a minute; hence spent fuel must be handled remotely. This dramatic increase in radioactivity is caused by the presence
of 3 to 4 atomic percent of fission products (e.g. 129I, 131I, 137 Cs, 90Sr), transuranium elements (e.g. 239Pu, 237Np, 241Am), and activation products (e.g. 14C, 60Co, and 63Ni) in the
metal spent fuel assemblies. The very penetrating ionizing radiation (βand γ ;) comes mainly from short-lived fission products, such as 137Cs and 90Sr, with half-lives of about 30 years. These fission products are mainly responsible for the thermal heat from the fuel (1300 watts/tonne of fuel after
40 years). The less penetrating radiation from α-decay events comes mainly from the very long-lived actinides, such as 239Pu and 237Np, with half-lives of 24,100 years and 2.1 million years, respectively. The composition of the spent fuel, when it is initially removed from the reactor, is very complex because it contains hundreds of short-lived radionuclides. With time the total radioactivity drops
quickly, so that after 10,000 years, it is 0.01 percent of the activity one month after removal from the reactor (Hedin 1997). After several hundred thousand years, the total radioactivity of the SNF equals the radioactivity of the original uranium ore mined to create the nuclear fueRelative radioactivity of spent nuclear fuel with a burn-up of 38 MWd/kg U. The activity is dominated by fission
products during the first 100 years, thereafter by actinides (Hedin 1997)."

There is factual and straightforward now.

[GSLevel9]

28. a rare intelligent, informed post on the subject. nt

[apocalypsehow]

40. Yes, it is, and note also that the only negative "replies" to it consist of personal attacks on the

poster, as opposed to factual rebuttal.

Very telling which side of the debate is engaged in an intellectually honest pursuit of factual truth, isn't it?

[MadHound]

44. I guess you missed all those links to governmental and educational publications I have up.

And tell me, just exactly how did I personally insult you. Please be specific.

[Avant Guardian]

61. A soda can of nuclear waste?

Could kill every person in the US.

[Statistical]

62. Wow. This post wins most anti-science post of the day.

1 soda can of spent nuclear fuel could kill 300 million people spread out over millions of square miles.

There is no sense even trying to debate with stupidity like that. Your grasp of science ranks up there with creationists.

[hunter]

10. Our fossil fuel plants have already created a "toxic wasteland."

And it is getting worse.

The volume and toxicity of the waste produced by coal power plants far exceeds that produced in nuclear power plants.

a toxic coal waste accident.

The carbon dioxide produced by fossil fuel power plants of any kind is far more destructive to the environment than any nuclear power plant "waste."

Many solar power schemes are also more toxic than nuclear power...

I'm a radical environmentalist. If I were emperor I'd ban private automobiles, coal mining, factory farms, and many other environmentally damaging human activities. I also think nuclear power plants are a viable way of reducing our dependence on fossil fuels.

In the short term, for the next few hundred years, replacing coal power plants with nuclear power plants is a good idea even if it requires large government subsidies.

Until we humans are able to significantly reduce our population voluntarily we will require large scale relatively clean power sources. "Natural" or "alternative" energy sources don't have the muscle to support the civilization we have created. If this civilization collapses, either from lack of energy, or from toxic fossil fuel waste and carbon dioxide emissions, then billions of people will die of starvation, disease, and in very ugly resource wars.

[MadHound]

18. Spoken like an industry spokesperson,

And just as wrong.

Proven, what is proven about it? The only thing proven about nuclear power is that we can't eliminate to major problems with it, namely human error and what to do with the waste.

Human error effects safety, which is a major concern with nuclear power. Every year there are major, minor and once in a great while, critical errors at nuclear plants. Minor errors usually involve the leakage of tritium or some other isotope from storage ponds. Major errors involve the release of a small amount of radioactive material into the environment, usually into the air. Critical errors, well, think Chernobyl or TMI. Though rare, when these do happen, they can leave vast swathes of land uninhabitable.

You simply cannot eliminate human error, and when dealing with something as toxic and dangerous as nuclear power, you really can't afford to have one. Even a minor leak of tritium into the ground water means putting people in danger. Even low levels of exposure are problematic and dangerous.

And then there is the question of what to do with the waste. U-235 has a half life of 700 million years, PU-239 a half life of 24,000 years. That makes a mockery of your contention below that "the vast majority of that decays off in minutes that's right minutes." Oh, and the reason those workers can stand next to those dry casks in your picture below: Because the casks are heavily shielded with depleted uranium and furthermore, they are only allowed to be next to them for a certain, small amount of time(depending on the TI) and they are only allowed a certain amount of dosage per month. I know, I've been one of those guys.

There is no safe, secure place to dispose of this waste. Yucca Mt. simply proved to be too unsafe, and frankly there is no safe place, not somewhere that can last hundreds of millions, or even tens of thousands of years. All we would be doing is poisoning future generations. Dry cask disposal and pond disposal bring about their own problems, tritium and other isotopes in the water, security headaches, etc. etc. The only truly safe way to dispose of nuclear waste is shooting it into the sun, but as we have seen with both Challenger and Columbia, even that would not be a foolproof measure, and an atmospheric burst of radioactive waste would be a nightmare.

As far as energy independence goes, no, sorry, that's not going to happen with nuclear power, even with a fast breeder reactor. The reason is because you still need uranium to jacket around the plutonium core of the breeder reactor in order to change it from uranium to plutonium. And frankly our uranium resources in this country are only sufficient to fill ten percent of our current needs. Which means we will still be dependent upon Canada, and worse yet, a number of African countries, both stable and unstable. So instead of being bent over an oil barrel, we will be bent over a uranium rod. Switching one master for another.

As far as needing nuclear power to provide baseline, steady power, well that has been shown to be false as well. Just recently another study, this time by researchers at Stanford, has shown that wind, water and solar can, right now, provide all the energy we need in this country and then some.

Granted, it would not be such a centralized power production model, but really, does that matter. Sure, the big power providers would either die off or transform themselves, but that happens all the time as one innovation makes another obsolete. And we move on.

Finally, one thing I noticed that you didn't address is that nuclear energy is much more expensive than the green renewables. Why should we pay extra for nuclear energy when we don't need it and when it is more expensive than green renewables?

Nuclear energy is a dinosaur, being kept alive by large corporate interests. We should let it die a peaceful death and move on to clean, green renewables. Anything else is the height of stupidity.

[Statistical]

20. Wow. The amazing thing is that absolutely nothing you said in that entire post is true.

" U-235 has a half life of 700 million years"
And? U-235 is naturally occurring. We are surrounded by billions and billions of tons of U-235 and we will regardless of if we use nuclear fuel or not. Unless you plan to move to Mars avoiding U-235 and its naturally occurring decay products is impossible. Over course you obfuscate by hiding the fact that U-235 represents only about 1/3 of 1% of spent fuel. Over 96% of spent fuel is U-238 the same exact stuff in "new" fuel.

"That makes a mockery of your contention below that "the vast majority of that decays off in minutes that's right minutes."
My statement was true. Yours was not. Not sure how that is a mockery.

1 ton of spent fuel has an activity of 6*10^19 Bq in the reaction at the point fission halts. The fuel isn't even removed from a reactor for about 14 days? Why? To allow the high output short halflife isotops to burn off. Activity drops almost 90% just before the reactor is even unsealed. By 1 year output has dropped over 95% to about 2*10^18 Bq. After a decade in cooling pond output is down to only 8*10^17 (a reduction of 99%).

After about 2-3 decades fuel is transfered to cask because water shielding is no longer needed. Over the next century the steepest reduction in activity will occur. At 200 years after fission activity has declined by 99.98%.

[MadHound]

24. Trying to be the master of misdirection, aren't you.

Yes, we're surrounded by U-235. Your claim of "billions and billions of tons" is technically correct, but most of it is so dispersed throughout the earth as to make it completely unprofitable, and impossible to extract. Not to mention the fact that it is so widely dispersed, in the ground, makes it of little danger.

The actual amount of reserves that the US has is only sufficient enough for approximately 23 years.
<http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/reserves/ures.html>

Yes, short lived isotopes from fuel rods burn off relatively quickly. But again, the fuel itself has a half life that spans tens of thousands of years. Please, don't continue to make a fool of yourself trying to snow us all with visual aids. Why not turn to the experts, shall we:

"After a typical burn-up, the radioactivity of the spent fuel has increased by a factor of a million (1017becquerel/metric tonne of fuel). One year after discharge from a reactor, the dose rate measured one meter from the fuel assembly is one million millisieverts per hour (for comparison, the natural
background dose is on the order of three millisieverts per year). A person exposed to this level of radioactivity at a distance of one meter would receive a lethal dose in less than a minute; hence spent fuel must be handled remotely. This dramatic increase in radioactivity is caused by the presence
of 3 to 4 atomic percent of fission products (e.g. 129I, 131I, 137 Cs, 90Sr), transuranium elements (e.g. 239Pu, 237Np, 241Am), and activation products (e.g. 14C, 60Co, and 63Ni) in the
metal spent fuel assemblies. The very penetrating ionizing radiation (βand γ) comes mainly from short-lived fission products, such as 137Cs and 90Sr, with half-lives of about 30 years. These fission products are mainly responsible for the thermal heat from the fuel (1300 watts/tonne of fuel after
40 years). The less penetrating radiation from α-decay events comes mainly from the very long-lived actinides, such as 239Pu and 237Np, with half-lives of 24,100 years and 2.1 million years, respectively. The composition of the spent fuel, when it is initially removed from the reactor, is very complex because it contains hundreds of short-lived radionuclides. With time the total radioactivity drops
quickly, so that after 10,000 years, it is 0.01 percent of the activity one month after removal from the reactor (Hedin 1997). After several hundred thousand years, the total radioactivity of the SNF equals the radioactivity of the original uranium ore mined to create the nuclear fueRelative radioactivity of spent nuclear fuel with a burn-up of 38 MWd/kg U. The activity is dominated by fission
products during the first 100 years, thereafter by actinides (Hedin 1997).
<http://gnews.wustl.edu/elements/e2_6/e2_6_art_bruno.pdf>

So gee, after several hundred thousand years, the spent fuel will have returned to the level of Uranium ore, which is still deadly in quantity and over time:eyes:

Oh, and I noticed that you didn't touch on the area of human error, not to mention the economics of nuclear power. If you are so much in support of green renewables, then why are you supporting nuclear power, one of the most expensive forms of power generation going?

Give it up, your arguments are just as discredited as the notion that we need to pursue nuclear power. It is a dangerous, costly dinosaur, one that should be consigned to the dust bin of history.

But hey, your visual aids were amusing:rofl:

[Statistical]

38. 23 years without reprocessing.

When fuel is "spent" only about 4% of it has been undergone fission. With reprocessing we could make the 23 years reserves lasts centuries maybe a milenium or two. Our reserves of thorium are roughly 20x that of uranium offering a parallel fuel supply and breeder reactors could produce power renewably for millions of years.

Currently we dig up some uranium, discard 95% of it. Enrich the remaining 5% and make it into fuel. We burn it up in a reactor for about 3 years after which point only 4% of the uranium has been used, call the entire thing waste and put it into safe storage.

Even doing that (the most inefficient method possible) our reserves will last over two decades. Reprocessing will extend that centuries. Also the DOE reserve is based on $100 uranium at higher price points $200, $500, $1000 the size of the reserve also grows.

Also you are aware the article you quoted confirmed that I said. Activity falls very rapidly over the first couple years. The quote you supplied even indicated that.

[MadHound]

39. And again, it more expensive than wind, solar or water,

Nor is it needed anymore to provide baseline power, as I've shown.

And again, it is dangerous, toxic, and presents a waste disposal problem that we haven't solved.

So if it is more dangerous, more expensive and unneeded, why pursue it?

[Statistical]

41. Hydro is limited in capacity. We have already dammed virtually every possible river.

Wind is cheaper than nuclear but only in areas of highest wind activity, not everywhere. As more wind is deployed the best regions get used first. Also it is variable which makes using it for baseline power difficult and expensive. Solar is still vastly more expensive than nuclear (and any other power source on the planet).

All have their advantages and disadvantages. Nuclear power is a viable choice for reducing green house gas emissions. At least according to those "pro nuke shills" the IPCC.

[MadHound]

43. I see that you haven't done any reading at the the Stanford link.

Nor anywhere else. If you had, you would recognize that nobody is talking about damming "virtually every possible river.":eyes: Please stop it with the hyperbole.

As far as wind goes, guess what, it is cheaper everywhere than nuclear. Apparently you haven't been keeping up with the latest in wind power, things like high efficiency turbines, windbelts, which generate a consistent flow in speeds as low as 4mph, and horizontal turbines, which also require much less wind.

As far as solar goes, no, it isn't more expensive than nuclear, again, you're apparently not keeping up on what is going on. The breakthrough in thin film photovoltaics has broken the price barrier, and it is now conceivable, and affordable, for families to shingle their roof with solar shingles.
<http://www.ncwarn.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/NCW-SolarReport_final1.pdf>
<http://www.physorg.com/news200578033.html>

GASP! Solar is now cheaper than nuclear, and getting cheaper.

But despite your professed affinity for renewables, despite the fact that your every argument has been countered, you still want to cling to nuclear power, why? Hell, I worked in a nuclear plant for years, yet even I'm not shilling for it like you are. Curiouser and curiouser.

[Statistical]

45. The duke study on solar power was end user cost not total cost.

http://www.ncwarn.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/NCW-SolarReport_final1.pdf

"Capital costs for solar generation were calculated with a 6% borrowing rate and a 25-year amortization
period. Standard solar modules are warrantied for 25 years.
A 30% Federal tax credit and a 35% North Carolina tax credit were applied to the capital cost to
reach a net cost per kWh."

Imagine that. If you cut 65% of the true cost it is suddenly cheaper. How about we subsidize nuclear power 65% and see which one comes out cheaper.

"kW residential solar installation, $6/watt installed cost, 6% borrowing rate, 25-year
amortization period, 18% capacity factor, 15% derating factor.
Taking 30% and 35% Federal and state tax credits yields a net system cost of $8,190 and a net
production cost of 15.9¢/kWh."

16 cents per kWh (even considering the 65% subsidy. Without the subsidies solar would twice as expensive as their estimate for nuclear power (14 to 18 cents per kWh).

[MadHound]

47. Oh, you want to talk subsidies?

Let's talk about the subsidies that nuclear power receives, shall we.

"The Calvert Cliffs case study identified more than 20 subsidies to the nuclear fuel cycle, supporting every stage of production. Unlike the situation with many small-scale renewable energy resources, the most important subsidies to nuclear power are not direct cash payments or easily measured tax breaks. Rather, they come from shifting risks from investors and owners onto taxpayers or the surrounding population. Some of these risks are financial, such as the risk of defaults on debt or costs associated with construction delays from regulatory oversight. Others are operational, such as not requiring facilities to purchase appropriate insurance levels for offsite damages to people and property from nuclear accidents, or to fully internalize the costs of long-term management of high level radioactive waste. These interventions are extremely valuable to the industry, but are also more difficult for people to understand than a direct cash transfer would be. This is likely one of the main reasons why the industry has been so successful in getting these subsidies enacted and renewed."

snip

"However, US$ 38.5 billion in loan guarantees under Title XVII were authorized by Congress in December of 2007, and the U.S. Department of Energy began moving the funding process forward in late June.

More than half of this amount (US$ 20.5 billion) is earmarked for the nuclear fuel cycle. This is a huge amount of money, and seems likely to rise much higher."

<http://www.globalsubsidies.org/en/subsidy-watch/commentary/gambling-nuclear-power-how-public-money-fuels-industry>

Meanwhile, solar subsidies amount to what. . . One billion dollars.
<http://www.greenoptimistic.com/2010/10/22/united-states-solar-power-subsidy/>

Sure, let's take away the subsidies away from both nuclear and solar, and see what happens. Guess what, solar is still cheaper nuclear, even without subsidies.

Oh, and one other thing, rather than having the taxpayers pick up the tab for insuring the nuclear industry, let's have the nuclear industry get its insurance like solar does, from the private sector. Oh, never mind, that's never, ever going to happen because insurance adjusters, like the rest of the sane population, realizes that there is simply too much inherent danger in nuclear power. If it wasn't for the US taxpayer, there would simply be no nuclear industry at all.

[NickB79]

48. "Meanwhile, solar subsidies amount to what. . . One billion dollars."

And how many gigawatts of electricity does that billion dollars get us, compared to how many gigawatts we get from nuclear?

If solar were ramped up to supply as much electricity as nuclear already does in the US, how many billions more would we be spending on subsidies?

[Statistical]

50. Here from the DOE.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy2/pdf/execsum.pdf

Table ES5. On a per unit basis solar receives roughly 15x the subsidies of nuclear power a staggering $24.02 per Megawatt of electricity (compared to $1.59 per Megawatt of nuclear power).

So it is true nuclear power does receive about 10x the subsidies as solar however it also achieves nearly 800x as much.

10x the subsidies and 800x the power. Thats what 80x as effective. Sounds like a good deal for me.

[Statistical]

49. Nope. You are comparing apples and oranges.

While it is true that nuclear has more subsidies in nominal terms it produces more power, much much more power. Nearly 790x as much power with only 10x the subsidies. No form of power on the planet is as subsidies are solar. Without subsidies solar would be an even smaller niche player.

One a per unit basis nuclear receives roughly $1.59 per MWe (0.1 cents per kWh). Solar on the other hand received $24.02 per MWe (2.4 cents per kWh).

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy2/pdf/execsum.pdf

The rest of your claims are bogus. Loan guarantees aren't a cost unless there is a default. The Price-Anderson insurance bill hasn't cost taxpayers a single penny. Nuclear utilities do have private insurance, more insurance than any other entity in the world.

[MadHound]

53. Umm, are you even reading your own sources?

"Some electricity sources, such as nuclear, coal, oil, and natural gas, have
received varying levels of subsidies and support in the past which may have aided them in
reaching their current role in electricity production.5 The impacts of prior subsidies, some of
which may no longer be in effect, are not measured in the current analysis."

IE, nuclear is benefiting from past subsidies, extending back sixty plus years, a price which isn't included in the current figures. Yet solar hasn't received those kind of subsidies until recently.

Furthermore, these figures that you're dealing with are three, almost four years old. They certainly don't take into account the advance in thin film photovolatics, which has only occurred in the past two years.

As far as Price Anderson not costing us a thing, think again. Try 5.7 billion for starters, and that's just the latest bill laid at the feet of the taxpayer. Don't forget to add in all the other billions as well.
<http://www.psr.org/assets/pdfs/existing-subsidies-and-incentives.pdf>

Oh, yes, the nuclear industry carried private insurance, which amounts to about 2 percent of the cost of cleaning up a major accident. We the people are on the hood for the rest of it. In fact I suggest that you read the entire document at the following link, it is rather informative and eye opening.
<http://www.citizen.org/documents/Price%2520Anderson%2520Factsheet.pdf>

So gee, after billions and billions in subsidies for nuclear, you're begrudging a billion for solar? You're still pursuing nuclear, despite the dangers of waste and operation, despite the costs?

Why? Nuclear isn't needed, as I've shown. So why pursue such a dinosaur of an energy source?

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Statistical]

3. $36 billion or $0 billion? So far the $18.5 billion allocated by Bush has cost taxpayers $0.00

Just like the much maligned Price-Anderson liability laws have cost taxpayers a whopping $0.00 since 1957.

[jillan]

4. You're full of great information this morning Donna!

I did rec this thread even tho it's not showing.

[upi402]

6. Build one in Chicago

on his damn street.

Bill Gates' R&D may invent a use for spent fuel, which looks like a win if it works. But until they invent "Nuke-Away!" ... forget about it.

[Peregrine Took]

13. You mean right next to the Tony Rezco side lot???

[Atman]

14. Cheney set the stage for this, and it's worse than you can imagine

Part of Cheney's energy commission plans involve elimination of nearly all inspections of N-plant construction until AFTER the plant's are completed. He calls it "Fast tracking" the cumbersome inspection process, which he blamed for slowing down construction and making N-plants too costly. BRILLIANT! So subsidize their construction with taxpayer money while the people who will profit from the construction are free to cut corners and risk the lives of everyone for generations. But hey, as long as they profit!

I was against Obama before I was for him, mainly because of his stance on "clean" coal. But it blows my mind that he's still supporting this. I don't think he had a choice, though; once Cheney's secret forces are in play, it's probably nearly impossible to stand in their way.

[Codeine]

21. Nuclear energy IS the green-powered future. nt

[Rebubula]

23. AMEN!

So many people are living in the past (codes and standards of safety have improved astronomically) and confusing the material used in nuclear bombs with that used in energy production.

But...many people just like to keep the boogyman alive.

[MadHound]

25. Really?

It is more expensive than green renewables, and frankly, it isn't needed (see my posts above).

Not to mention that it is dangerous, with unsolvable problems concerning human error and waste.

Green renewables are perfectly capable of handling our energy needs, at a cheaper cost.

So why should we implement a power generation source that is dangerous, expensive, and unneeded?

[bananas]

54. It's not Green, it's not needed, it's one of the worst options available. nt

[apocalypsehow]

26. Spot-on observation. The bottom line is that anti-nuclear = anti-environment/Green. Period. n/t.

[MadHound]

30. Except for this,

Nuclear power isn't green, it generates highly toxic waste that we still don't know how to dispose of. So that waste sits, in casks, in pools, leeching into the soil and groundwater. Not to mention that those casks aren't designed to hold the waste for the tens of thousands of years needed to render it safe.

Not to mention that nuclear energy is much more expensive than green renewables, especially when you consider the costs of waste disposal, and the fact that we, the taxpayer, pay the insurance tab for nuclear power, since no private insurer will write a policy for any US nuclear plant.

And as you can find in a link in my posts above, we don't need nuclear power. Solar, wind and hydro have advance far enough that we can power our entire country with them, with room to expand. Granted, it won't be the centralized power generation model that we're used to, but is decentralization a bad thing? Only for the corporate energy producers we have today.

So your title is false, your premise is false, as is your conclusion. But that's OK, educate yourself, learn something.

[apocalypsehow]

32. I know I'm hitting it pretty close to the mark when the personal attacks start flying.

My post above stands factually correct and un-refuted - as does the one it replies too - all the ad hominem snarling notwithstanding.

I have no interest in interacting with a poster whose only tactic in "debate" is to indulge in repeated personal attacks, so this discussion is concluded. Have a nice day.

[MadHound]

33. "Personal attacks start flying?" And where did I personally attack you?

If you are saying that pointing out that your title, premise and conclusion are false, that's not a personal attack, that's simply a statement of fact.

Asking for you to educate yourself is not a personal attack, it is what it is, a call for you to educate yourself, something that we all need to do on a continuing basis.

Your posts don't stand factually correct, nor un-refuted, I pointed out to you where you can go find the information you need. But if, for whatever reason, you don't want to scroll up and down this thread, here are my links in one spot, for your edification and education.

<http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/reserves/ures.html>
<http://gnews.wustl.edu/elements/e2_6/e2_6_art_bruno.pdf >
<http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/JDEnPolicyPt1.pdf>

I think what's really going on here is that you have a preconceived notion about nuclear power, one that isn't based on factual knowledge(as you mention above, you're a layman), and like many people, such preconceived notions die hard. I spent a number of years in the nuclear industry, working at a nuclear plant. I know what I'm talking about. Now while you may not like it, the fact is I actually do know more about this topic than you and most other people on this forum. But you wish to hold on to your preconceived notion, no matter what, and thus come up with the retort that I'm insulting you. That is simply false, as anybody reading our exchange can see. So my suggestion is that you open your mind, drop your preconceived notion, and educate yourself. There is nothing insulting about admitting that you don't know anything on a topic, nor is there any shame in educating yourself. In fact it is a fool who thinks that they know everything and thus have nothing left to learn, and you certainly wouldn't want to be thought of as a fool now, would you?

[bananas]

55. Nope - nuclear is not Green, it's green-washed - the Greens are against it

None of the major environmental groups support it, most are strongly against it.

[apocalypsehow]

57. Yep - Nuclear power is the cleanest, Greenest kind of energy available for human use, period.

If a group of "Greens" is against it, then they are not truly "Green."

You can quit replying to me with this business about how many advocacy "groups" are against it at any time now - I don't care, for starters, but more importantly it is irrelevant even if true, because the facts don't subject themselves to a vote on how many "groups" line up against them: they are still the facts. And those facts say there is no cleaner, safer, or more environmental-friendly source of energy than nuclear power.

Discussion concluded.

[MadHound]

58. OK then, would you care to discuss these following issues,

Like how there are no good solutions to two problems that haunt the nuclear industry, namely human error and what to do with the waste.

How the simple fact of the matter is that we don't need nuclear power, or for that matter oil, gas or coal. Wind, solar and water have the potential, right now, to provide all the power we need, both now and in the future, without resorting to these polluting power sources

Not to mention the simple fact that nuclear power is more expensive than green renewables, so why should we pay more for nuclear when we don't have to.

Or are you simply going to claim I'm insulting you and flounce off in a huff in order that you don't have to expose your ignorance on this matter?

[SidDithers]

29. +1...nt

Sid

[Statistical]

35. +1.

[Rex]

42. The only thing green about current nuclear energy is the radioactive

glow. What a totally ridiculous post.

[snooper2]

27. Good, although I wish 25% of that money went to fusion research

That's the way of the future :)

Check out the Joint European Torus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_European_Torus

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Scruffy1]

51. Low cost uranium will be used up by 2055

This is at our current rate of use. India will have mined out its supply by 2020 (Blood of the Earth,p 266, Dilip Hiro,). This is why weapon disassembly is going on.The "Megatons to Megawatts" program can only extend the uranium window by about ten years.
If you look at the entire nuclear operation from mining to enrichment to waste disposal costs Nukes are no more green than fossil fuels. Sure a nuke reactor is pretty clean by itself but the huge energy required to get it there definitely
changes the equation.
Nukes are too dam expensive. The capital outlay is enormous. In order to get the money utility companies bill there customers for electricity that hasn't been produced yet.
If the nuclear industry wasn't exempt from liability none would ever be built.
The USA could be converted to approximately 50% renewable in 50 years for far less money. Some great articles in Scientific American on this, but I don't have time right now to look them up.
Of course the taxpayers will get stuck with the clean up tab one way or another.